Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-02-26 MinutesPlanning Commission February 26, 2007 Page I of 53 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on February 26, 2007 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS DISCUSSED ACTION TAKEN ADM 07-2491 (SHOPPES AT STONEBRIDGE) Approved Page 4 ADM 07-2500 (LUTTRELL) Approved Page 4 ADM 07-2501 (ZAXBY'S EXTENSION) Approved Page 4 ADM 07-2502 (THE ARBORS@SPRINGWOODS) Approved Page 4 LSD 07-2417 (CHICK-FIL-A, 521) Approved Page 4 LSD 07-2457 (LEVERETT COMMONS, 405) Approved Page 4 LSD 07-2454 (THE COURTS@WHITHAM, 444) Approved Page 4 LSD 07-2426 (FIRE STATION #3,565) Approved Page 4 ADM 07-2490 (SRYGLEY, 294) Approved Page 4 CUP 07-2463 (KAMINSKY, 522) Approved Page 7 CUP 07-2432 (MOUNTAIN RANCH APARTMENTS, 479) Approved Page 11 LSD 07-2427 (MOUNTAIN RANCH APARTMENTS, 479) Approved Page 11 CONT. ACTION TAKEN Planning Commission February 26, 2007 Page 2 of 53 RZN 07-2464 (FOWLER, 558) Page 18 R-PZD 06-2281 (HOLCOMB HEIGHTS, 245) Page 20 ANX 07-2288 (BROYLES, 245) Page 28 Tabled Forwarded Forwarded R-PZD 07-2452 (THE LINKS AT FAYETTEVILLE, 400,401.361.632) Tabled Page 30 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Planning Commission February 26, 2007 Page 3 of 53 James Graves Jill Anthes Candy Clark Hilary Harris Andy Lack Sean Trumbo Lois Bryant STAFF PRESENT Jeremy Pate Andrew Gamer Suzanne Morgan Jesse Fulcher Glenn Newman/Engineering CITY ATTORNEY: Kit Williams Christine Myres Alan Ostner STAFF ABSENT Matt Casey/Engineering Planning Commission February 26, 2007 Page 4 of 53 Anthes: Welcome to the February 26, 2007 meeting of the City of Fayetteville Planning Commission. I would like to remind audience members and Commissions to turn off cell phones and pagers and anything that beeps. Listening devices are available if any of you are hard of hearing or have difficulty hearing in this chamber. You can contact a staff member and they will provide you with a headset. Will you call the roll? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call, Lack, Graves, Bryant, Harris, Clark, Trumbo, and Anthes are present. Commissioner Myres and Ostner were absent. Consent. Minutes from the December 11, 2006 Planning Commission meeting. ADM 07-2491: Administrative Item (SHOPPES AT STONEBRIDGE): Submitted by Steven Beam with Crafton, Tull, Sparks and Associates, Inc. requesting a one year extension of the March 2006 approval for the Large Scale Development of the Shoppes at Stonebridge. ADM 07-2500: Administrative Item (LUTTRELL): Submitted by RICK LUTTRELL requesting a one year extension of the February 2006 approval for the Lot Split, LSP 05-1781. ADM 07-2501: Administrative Item (ZAXBY'S EXTENSION): Submitted by BROCK DESIGN GROUP, INC. requesting a one year extension of the February 2006 approval for the Large Scale Development, LSD 05-1736. ADM 07-2502: Administrative Item (THE ARBORS @ springwoods): Submitted by MARLEY DEVELOPMENT CO. requesting a one year extension of the April 2006 approval for the Large Scale Development, LSD 06-1974. LSD 07-2417: Large Scale Development (CHICK-FIL-A, 521): Submitted by PBS&J for property located at 1369 WEST 6TH STREET, AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF 6TH AND RAZORBACK ROAD. The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 1.50 acres. The request is for a 3,921 s.f. restaurant with associated parking. LSD 07-2457: Large Scale Development (LEVERETT COMMONS, 405): Submitted by H2 ENGINEERING, INC. for property located on the E SIDE OF LEVERETT AVENUE, S OF RAINBOW DRIVE. The property is zoned RMF -24, MULTI FAMILY - 24 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 1.45 acres. The request is for 11 additional dwelling units to be added to existing structures and associated parking. LSD 07-2454: Large Scale Development (THE COURTS @ WHITHAM, 444): Submitted by N. ARTHUR SCOTT for property located at 529 & 539 N. WHITHAM AND 711 W. DOUGLAS STREET. The property is zoned RMF -40, MULTI FAMILY - 40 UNITS/ACRE Planning Commission February 26, 2007 Page 5 of 53 and contains approximately 1.42 acres. The request is for a multi -story residential project with 33 1 -bedroom units. The project was previously approved in November of 2005, and has expired. This request is identical to the previous submittal. LSD 07-2426: Large Scale Development (FIRE STATION #3, 565): Submitted by CARTER & BURGESS, INC. for property located at the SE CORNER HAPPY HOLLOW AND HUNTSVILLE ROAD. The property is zoned I-2, GENERAL INDUSTRIAL and contains approximately 1.53 acres. The request is for a 2 -story, 6,562 s.f. fire station. ADM 07-2490: (SRYGLEY, 294): A variance submitted by Angel Srygley for property located at 2518/2536 Candlewood Drive, to allow for a reduction in the five-foot retaining wall setback from a property line, a variance of Ch. 169.06, Land Alteration Requirements. Anthes: Our Consent Agenda tonight has ten items. The first is the approval of the December 11, 2006 Planning Commission meeting minutes. I have forwarded my comments to Mr. Pate. Administrative Item 07-2491 for the Shoppes at Stone Bridge. Administrative Item 07-2500 for Luttrell. Administrative Item 07-2501 for Zaxby's Extension. I believe we have a change on that one. Mr. Fulcher? Or sorry, Mr. Garner. Garner: Yes. We realized that the Zaxby's Large Scale Development also had an associated Conditional Use Permit with it so we would like to add one condition of approval to this item. We would like to add condition of approval number four that states that "this approval also grants a one year extension to conditional use permit CUP 05-1474 for Zaxby's subject to all associated conditions of approval. CUP 05-1474 shall expire on the same date as Large Scale Development 05-1736 towards Zaxby's." Anthes: Thank you Mr. Garner. And Mr. Pate we can just add that as an amendment to the Consent Agenda? Pate: Yes, ma'am. Motion: Anthes: Number Five is Administrative Item 07-2502 for the Arbors at Springwoods. Large Scale Development 07-2417 for Chick-Fil-A. Large Scale Development 07-2457 for Leverett Commons. Large Scale Development 07-2454 for the Courts at Whitham. Large Scale Development 07-2426 for Fire Station #3. And Administrative Item 07-2490 for Srygley. Would any member of the public or any Commissioner like to remove any of these items for discussion? Seeing none I will entertain motions to approve the amended Consent Agenda. Clark: I motion to approve. Anthes: Motion by Commissioner Clark. Do I hear a second? Planning Commission February 26, 2007 Page 6 of 53 Graves: Second. Anthes: Second by Commissioner Graves. Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to approve the amended consent agenda carried with a vote of 7- 0-0. New Business: CUP 07-2463: (KAMINSKY, 522): Submitted by LAURA KELLY for property located at 641 1/2 W SIXTH STREET. The property is zoned I-1, HEAVY COMMERCIAL/LIGHT INDUST and contains approximately 0.32 acres. The request is for an accessory residential use in a Planning Commission February 26, 2007 Page 7 of 53 nonresidential district, which exceeds the required size of an accessory structure. Anthes: Audience members will note that we are two Commissioners short this evening. That means that we have seven sitting Commissioners. All conditional uses, zoning requests, and PZD's require five affirmative votes to pass. You might consider that when presenting your items. The first item of new business is Conditional Use Permit 07-2463 for Kaminsky. Can we have the staff report? Morgan: Yes. The subject property is located on Sixth St at 641 W Sixth St. The property is zoned I-1 and it is surrounded by commercial properties both zoned I-1 and C- 2. There are currently two structures on this property. The northern structure adjacent to Sixth St is utilized as office artist studio space for the Art Experience. The southern structure is currently vacant. The applicant has applied and received a variance approval from the Board of Adjustment to remodel this structure. It is proposed for renovation and remodel for six units. Four smaller units on the first floor and two larger units on the second. These units will be designed for artist's studios. Four of the studios, two on each floor, will be equipped with a kitchen and full bathroom facilities thereby allowing for residential use. Within the I-1 zoning district, Use Unit 12, which includes live/work spaces, are permitted by right. However the applicant proposes that the four units that are equipped with kitchen and bathroom facilities be available not only as live/work units but also as residential units in their entirety. This conditional use permit is requesting permission to allow for this residential accessory use which would exceed 50% of the commercial enterprise or property on the subject property - space on the subject property. In reviewing this staff finds that this proposal will not adversely affect the public interest. In fact it will provide some in -fill opportunities in an area that is near by to public facilities such as the library, trail system, and downtown commercial area. It will add to the sustainability of the commercial district. We have gone through our findings and listed conditions of approval to address this specific request. First condition is in regards to Planning Commission determination of compliance with the commercial design standards. Although we are looking at this as a residential unit it will also be utilized for commercial as well. Staff finds that the proposed elevations are articulated in general compliance with commercial design standards as well as being compatible with surrounding properties. Condition two is in regards to parking. All parking demands will need to be met by this applicant. However, we have included in this condition that the Planning Commission hereby grants a reduction in parking subject to the criteria and if the applicant provides all necessary materials for reduced parking within mixed-use development as described in Chapter 176 for parking which does allow for reduced parking. The density proposed for four units is compliant with that allowed in this zoning district. We have listed a total of thirteen conditions. I would just like to mention on condition eleven, "Fire Department approval shall be required prior to issuance of a building permit to insure compliance with all fire code requirements" I did speak with Mr. Reagan from the Fire Department stated that they were able to get their emergency vehicles down there. He stated Planning Commission February 26, 2007 Page 8 of 53 that today so I don't think that he had any problems as long as they striped it according to requirements. We are recommending approval. Anthes: Thank you, Ms Morgan. Would any member of the public like to speak to Conditional Use Permit 07-2463 for Kaminsky? Ms Kelly, are you part of the applicant team? Kelly: Yes. Anthes: I am asking for public comment at the moment. Kelly: I am just here to... Anthes: It will probably be just a second. Kelly: Ok. Anthes: Anybody else like to speak? Seeing none I will close the floor to public comment and ask for the applicant's presentation. Laura, are you presenting? Or Hank? Kelly: Ok. Anthes: Come on up. Kelly: Hi, I'm Laura Kelly and I am representing the owners Hank and Joanne Kaminsky. I feel like Suzanne Morgan's presentation is very thorough. We did speak with Jim Johnson, the addressing 911 coordinator, and so we are now 643 West Sixth St. But otherwise we feel like, as does planning staff, that this would be an excellent contribution to the local fabric along W Sixth St. Anthes: Thank you, Ms Kelly. Commissioners? Clark: Madam Chair? Anthes: Commissioner Clark. Clark: I have two questions. One is for staff, but since you are up there Ms Kelly, I will ask you. In our elevations, and I think this building is going to be absolutely spectacular, but curiosity forces me to ask what the material is for the stairs. Kelly: Well, there are steel guard rails. Is that what you are talking about? And handrails. And what we are designating there is artistic creativity because the owner actually is an artist in steel. So there is a lot of potential, but certainly the handrails and guardrails will meet the minimum 4inch sphere not passing through requirements. Planning Commission February 26, 2007 Page 9 of 53 Clark: It was just curiosity. I think this is a great use of this space and I am a very strong supporter of it. In fact if we were to get a Fayetteville cultural arts district this would be in it. It is very appropriate. But question for staff, can you explain condition number two to me? In simple language? I have never seen a condition that says the Planning Commission hereby grants before we do that. Morgan: Before what? Clark: Before we really vote on it. But explain it to me, please. Morgan: Well, there are ordinances in the parking chapter which would allow for a shared parking agreement which would be between two properties that have different uses of different peak hours for parking. There is also a section which would allow for a reduction in parking for mixed use developments where you basically have two different uses on one property which would have different demands for the parking spaces. If the applicant is able to provide necessary requirements showing that the peak hours, the demand hours, are different and that they can utilize the parking and have no conflict then the Planning Commission can grant that the number of parking spaces are going to adequate. Clark: Ok. So when you say all necessary materials you are talking informational materials? Morgan: Yes. Clark: Fooled me! It is near the end of the month so I don't have to think much. That is good, thank you. Anthes: Is there further discussion? Commissioner Lack. Lack: On that same item, what would the reduction be? Numerically? Pate: It is probably going to depend upon that chart. It is very close at this point. One option is that they could come back with another Conditional Use and go 30% under. However, we felt that they could with utilization of bicycle racks and the amount of parking that they have on the property be able to meet that reduced parking for the mixed-use development. We just, at the time of publication, we didn't have that information in hand. We wanted to make sure the Planning Commission was aware of that. This will be tight on parking. I think the positive thing about it is that by utilizing both residential units and the mixed use component, the artists' live/work studio, I don't the demand will be as great as if it were all strictly residential or all strictly commercial at the same time. Lack: Can you tell me what the use of the wood structure to the north is? It is part of the parking ratio, is it not? Planning Commission February 26, 2007 Page 10 of 53 Pate: I believe it is utilized as an artist office space currently. Lack: OK. I was trying to figure out how many parking spaces, if there was no reduction, how many parking spaces would have to be there to know just how large of a reduction we are allowing. Pate: It seems like there were eight without the reduction and they are providing seven. So that is why we wanted to look at that. I think there is potential even to reduce some of the ADA accessible striped area and still meet the requirements and get another space if necessary. But they are right there within one or two spaces. Motion: Lack: Ok. I feel comfortable with that. And with that I will make a motion that we approve Conditional Use 07-2463 for Kaminsky. Clark: I'll second. Anthes: We have a motion by Commissioner Lack with a second by Commissioner Clark. Is there further discussion? Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to approve CUP 07-2463 Kaminsky was approved by a vote 7-0- 0. CUP 07-2432: (MOUNTAIN RANCH APARTMENTS, 479): Submitted by JORGENSEN AND ASSOCIATES for property located SE OF PERSIMMON STREET AND MOUNTAIN RANCH S/D PHASE L The property is RMF -24, RESIDENTIAL MULTI -FAMILY, 24 UNITS PER ACRE and contains approximately 15.37 acres. The request is for a 4,800 sq. ft. clubhouse and swimming pool on the subject property. LSD 0 7-2427: Large Scale Development (MOUNTAIN RANCH APARTMENTS, 479): Planning Commission February 26, 2007 Page 11 of 53 Submitted by JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATES for property located S OF PERSIMMON STREET AND E OF MOUNTAIN RANCH SUBDIVISION PH. I. The property is zoned RMF -24, RESIDENTIAL MULTI -FAMILY, 24 UNITS PER ACRE and contains approximately 15.37 acres. The request is for an apartment complex with 360 dwelling units in 4, four-story buildings with associated parking, clubhouse, pool and green space. Anthes: Item 12 and 13 are tandem items. Conditional Use Permit 07-2432 and Large Scale Development 07-2427 for Mountain Ranch Apartments. We will hear both together and vote separately. Jesse? Fulcher: Yes, ma'am. This Item was heard at the previous Subdivision Committee and forwarded by a vote of 3-0. Partly because of the conditional use that is requested part of this must be approved by the Planning Commission. Also, there is one waiver under Condition number one for the Large Scale. The project itself is approximately 15 acres located just east of Mountain Ranch Blvd that was constructed as part of Mountain Ranch phase one. The property is zoned RMF - 24. The applicants are proposing to construct four, four-story multi -family buildings with 590 parking spaces and 360 dwelling units. The property will have access to Persimmon St which is constructed all the way to Shiloh to the west and then to Rupple to the east and onwards. Also it will have access to Mountain Ranch Blvd which currently dead -ends at this project. But with future development to the south that will be continued south providing another point of ingress and egress to this. Also there will be a stub -out to the east that will be connected with future development. And because of Mountain Ranch Blvd being constructed to the south potentially with future development and also the topography to the south of this, staff did not recommend another stub -out to the south. As I stated, with this Large Scale Development is Conditional Use request for the clubhouse and pool area which will be located interior to the development. Staff, with the recommendations cited in the Conditional Use and the Large Scale, are recommending approval. The first Condition of Approval is the waiver from Chapter 170.02 for the adopted drainage criteria. That is for the distance between the wet detention pond and one of the residential structures. That requirement is 100ft and to be at least 2ft above that ponding elevation. This building will be 4ft above that and a safety fence will be constructed around this pond. Partly the reason why this building is so close to that pond is to... If you have been out to this site and many of you have, the north part of this site is relatively flat. There are no trees on that portion so they moved the buildings further towards the north to get away from some of the existing tree canopy on the site. Staff is recommending in favor of that waiver. Condition two and tree are Planning Commission determinations of street improvements and connectivity. The Subdivision Committee did find in favor on both of those. Staff is also in favor of those. Item seven is payment of park fess for 360 multi -family units in the amount of $244,800 dollars due prior to building permit. I believe all the other conditions of approval are fairly straight forward, but if you have any questions I will be happy to answer those. Planning Commission February 26, 2007 Page 12 of 53 Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Fulcher. Would any member of the public like to speak to Conditional Use Permit 07-2432 or the Large Scale for Mountain Ranch Apartments? Seeing none I will close the floor to public comment. Would the applicant like to make a presentation? Hafeman: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Garrett Hafeman here with Jorgensen and Associates representing SE Bogner Co for the Mountain Ranch Apartments. I think Mr. Fulcher gave a great presentation. I will just add that we are very excited to be here tonight for the first time to show this project before the full Planning Commission. We think we have a great idea here and we have done a fairly knockout job of mixing density and preserving quite a bit of the green area on this site as set forth in the City 2025 Plan. I would be happy to answer any questions that you have for me tonight. Also in attendance is Chris Brackett with Jorgensen and Mark Smith from MAS Architects in Indianapolis and Steve Bogner the developer himself. Thank you. Anthes: Thank you. Commissioners? I have one question of staff. I know that often on conditional use permits we ask for hours of operation. Do we ever do that for residential clubhouses and pools? Pate: I don't think we have. Usually these are interior to a project that is developing around it. Where single family residential and multi -family and I don't know that we have ever seen hours of operation for that one. Anthes: Ok. Thank you. Clark: So what order do we go in? Conditional use? Anthes: Yes, the conditional use is first. Motion: Clark: I will move that we approve Conditional Use 07-2432 with conditions as listed. Trumbo: Second. Anthes: We have a motion to approve by Commissioner Clark with a second by Commissioner Trumbo. Are there further comments? Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to CUP 07-2432 Mountain Ranch Apartments with conditions as listed was approved by a vote 7-0-0. Anthes: Now on to the Large Scale Development. I have a question of staff. I asked this question at Subdivision and I am still a little confused about the one trash compactor on this entire site for this many units. I am wondering how we are planning to move trash from the units that are so far away to that one location and Planning Commission February 26, 2007 Page 13 of 53 whether the development team is handling that movement or whether residents are going to be expected to carry their trash that far. Pate: Part of our requirements in the technical plat review is that our solid waste division participates in that. There is actually a condition of approval for the size of the compactor which I believe they are referring to the one that you are referring to which is on the western portion of the site. They typically will ask for more if they are needed. I don't know if that is in their comments currently or not to be honest with you. If further compactors are added of course they will have to meet our standards for size and screening just like this one would, or other dumpsters. But to the number of those I am not even sure what the ratio per resident is to be honest with you. Anthes: Garrett, yeah, you are standing up. Hafeman: I did meet with Mr. Brian Pugh with solid waste. I'm sorry if I mispronounce the name. Anthes: Brian Pugh? Hafeman: I'm sorry? Anthes: Brian Pugh? Hafeman: Yes, yes. With Solid Waste. We met before we submitted for technical plat. He advised me that one compactor would be adequate enough for this site. It would be possible, he said, if the demand was too great to service the compactor possibly on a more frequent schedule. But we did meet and I actually even requested possibly two compactors and he said that in his opinion that would not be necessary at this time. As far as transporting the garbage that is up to how the property management will run the facility. I am not sure how that will happen, whether the residents will be required to take it to a staging area or where possibly there will be valet garbage service. I am not aware of that and I am not sure if the developer has an answer for that either. Those are the two options that I see at this point and time. Anthes: I guess just looking at... we don't want to create a condition where people are tempted to leave it somewhere. Hafeman: I completely understand. Anthes: Is there further discussion? I guess we could start with conditions of approval. Number one is the determination of a waiver for the drainage criteria manual. That is requiring the limits of the maximum climbing elevation to closer than 100ft horizontal for any building grading and 211 below the lower seal. Are there any comments on that condition? Planning Commission February 26, 2007 Page 14 of 53 Harris: Madam Chair? Anthes: Yes, Commissioner Harris. Harris: Did I hear you correctly? Were you on this Subdivision Committee? Do you mind just summing up? I think several of these... The Subdivision did find in favor of the first three conditions. Do you mind revisiting your conversations? Anthes: Commissioner Lack, I believe you chaired that meeting. Would you like to go over the discussion? Lack: Sure. The main point of contention, I think that I remember, was whether we could.... It was the way the buildings addressed the topography and the ability to get a southern access. At first glance it looked like the parking lots either east or west adjacent to building four could be easily stubbed out for the future Mountain Ranch Dr or Blvd. At that point in asking that question we realized that there was a l Oft retaining wall adjacent to that property line and that that would prohibit the transport of traffic to that south area. Upon that realization we started looking at all the retaining walls that led discussion of how the site was established with the... Not stepping, but having large buildings cutting into the hillside. The final determination by the three of us was that that is something beyond our purview and that the retaining wall system was within the ordinance. It was within the bounds of the ordinance. As far as the determinations, the drainage criteria manual, that was simply described by staff and I think accepted by each of us. We did discuss a fence and what the material of the fence might be. The determination of street improvements had to do with Mountain Ranch Blvd and the fact that it would not have other access to the south if the developer at this time provided the road to the south it wouldn't access any other property. So I believe the condition states that they are guaranteeing that section of boulevard and as for connectivity again that reverts back to what we discussed about connection adjacent to building four that would be prohibitive due to the terrain. Anthes: Commissioner Harris, did you need further clarification? Harris: No, I appreciate that. Thank you. Clark: Madam Chair, can I jump in between the conditions and ask the applicant a question? How many bike racks do we have? Hafeman: I believe there are eight bike racks. Clark: And this is going to have the potential, we are going to have 360 dwelling units so potential occupancy is over 700 people if it all fills. Or something between 5 to 700? Planning Commission February 26, 2007 Page 15 of 53 Hafeman: Yes. At full occupancy. Clark: We're guessing, I know. Hafeman: Yes. Clark: It just strikes me as terribly odd, and this is over 15 acres. It just strikes me at terribly odd that we have eight bike racks, 5 to 700 people and one trash compactor. We don't have anything in the City provisions that multifamily dwelling spells out the number of trash receptacles. That just seems amazing to me. And not only do we only have one but it is on the far western side of the development. Pate: The City certainly does but it is not usually reviewed. It is an operational type of application so Solid Waste is the division that typically determines what size and what manner those are. Clark: Ok. And this trash compactor takes about two parking places. So is their parking good enough to add trash compactors in the future? Pate: Yes. Clark: There are spaces? I mean, I am guessing it takes about two. Pate: They are about 9% above what they are normally required so they have adequate spacing. Clark: That could lead to additional compactors? Pate: Sure. Certainly. Clark: Because that just strikes me. You have eight bike racks but one trash? Hafeman: Well, the bike racks are by ordinance. That is what is required, so... Clark: Yeah that is a good thing. Hafeman: And the compactor, like I said, we suggested two compactors to Solid Waste. They came back to us and said that that was not necessary and that one compactor would be sufficient. If that became an issue with loading they would service it on a bimonthly or weekly basis. I mean this is coming straight from Solid Waste and they are the ones that are going to be servicing that compactor. And as far as the location goes, yes, I would really like to put it right in the center. But Solid Waste put some restrictions on us and they said we need to be able to approach it and back into it and this location lent itself as the most desirable. The other location we thought about possibly was over on the east side of the site. You see Planning Commission February 26, 2007 Page 16 of 53 that little connector road that is kind of by itself there with no parking on it. We thought of possibly stubbing into that but that ate into some pretty nice Oak trees and some tree preservation area over there and that wasn't looked upon as a good idea. Especially in these two acres of tree preservation it wouldn't look nice to have a big compactor sitting right there on the edge of it. And although the compactor located on the west side of the site is near the entrance we feel that with the screening that will be required by the City. It is a common point that most residents will drive by as they are entering and exiting the site. Clark: It comes as sort of a surprise to me that the City actually has compactors. Dumpsters yes, but compactors? Pate: They are becoming more and more common. Especially with larger projects like this. Clark: Well, they are more efficient, etc., etc, but that is just kind of an interesting thing. Ok. If you are going to be happy selling it like that then I am going to be happy letting you. Anthes: Is there further discussion? I guess we can go to condition of approval number two. Are there any comments on the street improvements? About condition three? Connectivity? Other comments or motions? Lack: Madam Chair? Anthes: Commissioner Lack. Motion: Lack: I will move that we approve LSD 07-2427 with the stated conditions of approval with special consideration for the determination of the waiver request in the affirmative. Item number two the determination of street improvements in the affirmative and item number three the determination of connectivity in the affirmative. Anthes: Thank you, Commissioner Lack. Do I hear a second? Graves: Second. Anthes: We have a motion to approve by Commissioner Lack with a second by Commissioner Graves. Are there further comments? Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to approve LSD 07-2427 Mountain Ranch Apartments with conditions and considerations as listed was approved by a vote 6-1-0. Commissioner Anthes voted No. Planning Commission February 26, 2007 Page 17 of 53 RZN 07-2464: (FOWLER, 558): Submitted by STEVE FOWLER for property located at 2725 W. SIXTH STREET & 2769 W. SIXTH STREET. The property is zoned R -A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL and contains approximately 1.50 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial. Anthes: Item 14 is rezoning request 07-2464 for Fowler. I believe the applicant has requested that this item be tabled. Are any members of the public here to address that item tonight? If you are would you raise your hand? Ok. We do have public comment. Should we go ahead and hear the staff report then? Mr. Fulcher. Fulcher: Briefly I will go through what the rezoning request was. As you stated the applicant did request this to be tabled. The reason this made it to the agenda is that the applicant was out of the country. I tried to reach him before the agenda was put together on Thursday. However he did not get back together with me until Friday. He stated that he had some information that he had submitted to the Corps regarding the floodplain and floodway. As part of staff's reason for Planning Commission February 26, 2007 Page 18 of 53 recommending denial of this project and also had some preliminary site plans obviously they we wouldn't necessarily take into consideration for a rezoning but just to see how the site could be developed because of the nature of this property. The property is located between east and west Farmers. It is adjacent to Sixth Street. It contains approximately 1 '/z acres and is currently zoned R -A. The request is to rezone this property C-1 neighborhood/commercial. Staff had not received any public comment. Obviously some neighbors have shown up tonight. I did speak with an adjacent property owner this morning; he actually came by the office. I did let him know that the item would be tabled and that a notification should be sent out again for the next meeting assuming that this comes back before the Planning Commission and that a new public notice sign would be put up on the property. As I stated staff was recommending denial of this project finding concerns with ultimately the floodplain and floodway on this property. It took up a significant amount of this property between the Sixth St. Master Street Plan right-of-way and the rear property line. Also we had concerns regardless of the floodplain and floodway on this property of rezoning the longer L shaped portion of the property to C-1. It abutted some existing single family properties that are developed with single family homes and as far as compatibility with those we had issues with that. That is why we are recommending denial of the project although with the applicant being out of the country and wanting to present some additional information that may help with some of the concerns that staff has we definitely find that it is appropriate to table this item. Anthes: Thank you Mr. Fulcher. Would any member of the public like to speak to this item? If so come on up to the podium. Clark: Madam Chair. Anthes: And I understand that the applicant is out of town, correct? Ok. Motion: Clark: I move that we table rezoning 07-2464 until the next Planning Commission? Or indefinitely? Anthes: Indefinitely. Clark: Let's do indefinitely. Anthes: We have a motion to table indefinitely by Commissioner Clark. Do I hear a second? Tnunbo: Second. Anthes: Second by Commissioner Trumbo. Is there a discussion? Will you call the roll. Planning Commission February 26, 2007 Page 19 of 53 Roll Call: The motion to table indefinitely RZN 07-2464 Fowler was approved by a vote 7-0-0. Planning Commission February 26, 2007 Page 20 of 53 R-PZD 06-2281: Planned Zoning District (HOLCOMB HEIGHTS, 245): Submitted by TODD JACOBS CRITICAL PATH DESIGN for property located at THE SW CORNER OF WEIR AND SALEM, N OF THE SALEM MEADOWS S/D. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 13.47 acres. The request is for a Residential Planned Zoning District containing 68 dwelling units. Anthes: Item 15. R-PZD 06-2281 Planned Zoning District for Holcomb Heights. Can we have the staff report? Fulcher: Yes, ma'am. This is a residential planned zoning district request on approximately 13 %z acres at the southwest corner of Weir Rd and Salem Rd. Many of the Planning Commissioners have reviewed this item at Subdivision Committee. I believe that many of you are familiar with this, but if you are not the request is for 68 single family homes resulting in a density of approximately five unites per acre. The property is currently zoned RSF-4 with the planning area property to the west and north and RSF-4 developed subdivisions to the south and the east. Access to the property would be directly from Weir Rd. There is also an existing stub out from the south from Salem Meadows. Also they would be stubbing out to the west which would stub out to a property which we will hear under the annexation for Broyles following this item. That property would then connect to Rupple Rd. Those streets other than the one from Salem Meadows are two collectors and a principal arterial for Rupple Rd. Staff has received some written comments from the past Subdivision Committee meetings citing such concerns as increased traffic, density, over crowded schools, decrease in property value, and drainage issues, and the overall amount of development in the area. Overall this project is very compatible. It is strictly single family in nature which is compatible with all the surrounding land uses. The density is somewhat higher than a RSF-4 development that we have seen. It is actually similar, I believe in looking at your packets and driving by Salem Village planned unit development, it is similar to the development of that with alley loaded properties all fronting onto the public streets. A large village green central to the property for the residents and smaller green spaces located throughout and many pedestrian walkways. Also as part of the PZD the applicants have requested many different types of street designs, different from that of our local or residential street standards. The streets are at 23 -ft street section. Again, in combination with the rear loaded alleys and they have requested numerous waivers which I will go through in the conditions of approval based on street design standards. With the findings within the PZD report staff is recommending approval of this planned zoning district. I should say recommending that this item be forwarded to the City Council with a recommendation for approval. Condition number one is Planning Commissioner determination of the street improvements. Weir Rd is to be reconstructed as a four way intersection with Gypsum Dr. Those of you who were out on tour with us on Thursday, currently Weir Rd connects to Salem north of where Gypsum comes out on the east side of Salem. The existing Weir Rd will be removed. Where the existing three homes access that their drives will be continued further south to intersect with the newly Planning Commission February 26, 2007 Page 21 of 53 constructed Weir Rd. Turn lanes would be added at that intersection and improvements for a collector street including curb and gutter, 611 sidewalks, and storm drains would be constructed. Salem Rd is also to be improved, importantly a center line. A center turn lane will be constructed also at that intersection. Improvements 14ft from center line including all appropriate street improvements along that western frontage. Part of that will be coordinated with on -street parking in that area. So there will be little variation between where you head south from that turn lane to where you get into the on -street parking. Of course all of the interior streets and alleys would be constructed to City standards. Also condition F, referring back to the on -street parking, part of the Solid Waste and Fire Department had many comments when this item went to technical plat review to make sure they were able to service this development. The applicant has made all the necessary changes so that these two vital City services can be conducted on this development. However, at any time that they feel that they can not access either the alleys to get to the trash receipt they may request that some on -street parking be removed so that front service can be constructed. The Subdivision Committee, as you can see I have outlined, for the most part I have found in favor of these street improvements. One of the meetings there were not any comments made on that item because the item was tabled. On condition number two this is waivers for minimum street design standards. Item A is a requested 23ft interior streets. Staff is finding in favor of that given the type of development and in combination with the rear loaded alleys. B is the horizontal curve with a radius less than 150ft. This is just north of detention lot number 69 which you can see in that drawing there. Or at least the area. Staff is in favor of that request. We have curb return radii of 20ft where 30ft is required on minor streets and 25 for alleys. Staff is in favor of that. Curb radius of 30ft at collector streets where 50 is required. This is at the southwest intersection of Weir Rd and Salem Rd. Staff is in favor of that request. The minimum jog, this is a 73ft proposal where 15011 is required. That is partly due to where Downs Ave extends north as a stub out and trying to coordinate where that stub out is going to enter their property within their development which is the reason for that request. And then also the standard 2ft curb and gutter section has been reduced to a foot and a half. Staff is recommending approval of that request. I believe that all the other conditions are fairly standard for a planned zoning district. Parks fees under number five our due for $65,280 for 68 single family dwelling units. It's part of building permit approval. I believe all the other items are straight forward. If you have any questions please ask. Anthes: Thank you, Jesse. Would any member of the public like to speak to this planned zoning district for Holcomb Heights? Seeing none I will end the public comment section. Would the applicant like to make a presentation? Mr. Jacobs. Jacobs: Good evening. Todd Jacobs with Appian Centre for Design. We had a quick power point for you but it does not seem to be working. So I will just run though it real quick and point out the high points of this project and why we feel it is a really quality project. After that Hank Broyles has just a few words he would like Planning Commission February 26, 2007 Page 22 of 53 to say about the project as well. Hank brought this project to our office. It was a subdivision with 39 lots. At that same time was when Dover Kohl was back in town. So we took the opportunity to look at making a traditional neighborhood versus a RSF-4 subdivision which is what it would be. Just an extension of Salem Meadows which is south. Some of the key components of this design is that we looked at facing all of our houses onto Salem Rd. We felt very passionate about making great public streets. Places where people want to walk and be instead of turning our backs to them and putting the fences onto Salem like you see currently. For our main roads of Salem and Weir we faced our houses onto them. We have on -street parking on certain sections of them to help control traffic and allow for pedestrians to feel a little bit more comfortable walking. Another opportunity for this project is that we are so close to Holcomb School and the Gary Hampton Sports Complex that we wanted people to be able to walk their children to school. We looked at the entry market for housing to try to bring some affordable, obtainable housing. Hank can speak to that a little more. Some other key aspects to this are the central piece which we call the village green. It is about 2/3 of an acre. It will be managed. It will be private. It will be POA. There is currently a park in Salem Meadows about 2 acres, a City park. Even with that we felt that the village green is very important. It is kind of the gateway, the green way onto this community. It is what creates a place. We talked about great neighborhoods. The feeling of the place, the identity. So we felt very strongly about the village green facing the houses onto it. As you can kind of see with the aerial views and the birds eye that kind of gives you a pretty good idea of the identity that we are trying to create here. You can kind of see a little bit in the supporting sketches. Also with this we look at trying to provide three to four different types of housing footprints or lot sizes so there is a price range in this neighborhood. So you have a variety of people. Different economic incomes have a choice to live here. With this it is alley loaded, something I am sure y'all are seeing more and more of. We are working a lot on it in our office. So that does create that great street scape. Utilities are in back. The trash service is in the back. It has been a little bit of an educational experience for us on how that works and the finer details. I see the pictures in magazines, but learning how the details work is kind of the struggle with these. Also a couple of other items. You can kind of see two green spots in the back. We plan on those being tot lots and you can see... You can't really see it, but we have pedestrian green ways throughout. We have four of them that allow people to enter and exit the property by foot so that you can access onto the sidewalk and down to Holcomb School without going all the way up to Weir and then south down Salem. We find that part of our key for our design is pedestrian access and having them actually build a place to walk to and get out. You will see that through our projects. Especially with this one. Green ways through lots. People do have the choice to get there. Just overall this project we are very excited about it. I think it is a change from what Fayetteville has been currently seeing a lot of. We hope it will be successful and create a great neighborhood. It will have its own identity and be a calling card for the people that live there. I believe that Hank has a few words he would like to say. Thank you. Planning Commission February 26, 2007 Page 23 of 53 Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Jacobs. Mr. Broyles. Broyles: Good evening. Hank Broyles. I just want to take a moment to thank first of all Planning from Jesse and Jeremy Pate. They have spent a lot of time and energy and their contributions were well taken. We appreciate how they have assisted us in getting this design brought forward. Also from engineering, Glenn Newman and Ron Petrie. Both have been very helpful to us on what we needed to do in that area for storm water control. We appreciate their contributions. I am sorry that you missed the presentation from Power Point. It would have helped out a little bit. But the one other thing that I wanted to bring to your attention is that we have met with Lioneld Jordan and Gary Dumas on numerous occasions to discuss attainable housing. We are buying into that. We have dedicated a separate project to it that we will bring to you later. But we think it is important that we do some kind of attainable housing in every one of our neighborhoods. Our commitment is that we will bring at least 5% of our houses will be attainable. And every single development we do on the single family. And as we have offered to Jeremy, if you would like to you can even make that a condition of approval. Thank you. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Broyles. Commissioners. Graves: Madam Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Graves. Graves: I guess I would.... You all may have discussed at Agenda which I was not present for on Thursday the correspondence from the developer. First of all, regarding the one that Mr. Broyles just mentioned, the 5% attainable housing and that it be made a condition of approval. Second of all, and I don't think we really have any say so in what the Planning Commission regarding road impact fees, but I would ask that staff address those two items and whether we should do anything with either one of them. Pate: Certainly. We did pass those letters out at the Agenda Session, as I noted to Mr. Broyles and the Planning Commission. I think in terms of both of those issues I think are more appropriately discussed at the City Council level. They are policy decisions. You as the Planning Commission have not been involved with the road impact fee discussion and it is something that is going to the voters in April and you don't even know that it is going to be approved. I think in terms of attainable housing, we certainly appreciate Mr. Broyles offering that. I think something of that nature is also better discussed at the Council level. It is not something that we would typically review. But if he is willing to offer that once this gets to City Council I think they will take him up on that offer. I do certainly appreciate him sending that information forward. Planning Commission February 26, 2007 Page 24 of 53 Williams: I would say that he might offer that as a Bill of Assurance but not as a Condition of Approval because we don't have authority to require that. Therefore it would be something that he would have to offer as a Bill of Assurance, I think, as opposed to asking a new Condition of Approval be placed. Anthes: OK? Graves: Thank you. Anthes: Are you finished? Graves: Yep. Anthes: Is there further discussion? Harris: Madam Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Harris. Harris: Can I ask Mr. Jacobs a question? In the packet in your booklet (tape flip).... Out of curiosity the sidewalks on page 2 and page 5, the photographs are indicating a different kind of sidewalk and I am just wondering if you are suggesting that that is what you would like to actually build? Jacobs: The sidewalks we are talking about are gravel. We have seen that in more conservation subdivisions that we have studied. It is something we would like to try. Not the City's sidewalks, but something that is maintained by the POA such as our pedestrian walkways. It is a low impact design. It brings a lower impervious area to a project. We would like to try it and meet ADA compliance and those issues. But yes, that is something we would like to try in the future. Harris: Is that something that you would like to try in this project? Jacobs: It would be an item I would like to try on this project and we did get approval in order to work with engineering staff for different types of sidewalks and private property to see if we can work something out in the future. Harris: Would you mind just indicating for me, on something here, where it would be where you might try that? Anthes: Todd, if you would get the microphone and take it with you? You can just pull it out of there. Jacobs: As I talked about before, the pedestrian walkways moving through a project. Right here is one example. That is something we would like to look at as a type of crushed stone. There is a second one here moving back from some extra Planning Commission February 26, 2007 Page 25 of 53 parking. Mostly in the interior and the public right-of-way public sidewalks. Harris: Thank you. Is that something that we are looking at in this proposal? Pate: On public property, not typically. You can do that essentially if you are on private property. I think that is something that we would encourage, and as Mr. Jacobs mentioned we will likely look at some of those construction methods especially within the right-of-way or outside the right-of-way to make sure we still meet our ADA requirements. Within all public right-of-way, however, you still have to meet those same concrete standards. Harris: Thank you. Clark: Madam Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Clark. Motion: Clark: I saw this in Subdivision. I liked it. I still like it. I like the fact that your packet, your book, is all fixed and all the typo's are cleared up. Except it doesn't have an A. It starts with B. But I think I have read A before where you lay out your intent, etc. As long as you are still going to hold to that I am more than happy. My booklet doesn't start with A, I don't know if your all's does or not. Mine starts with (unknown) project and I think that is B. Last time I saw this booklet... I am not even going to complain about that because you have really made great improvements and you have gotten it together the way it should be. I appreciate that. And I appreciate that you waited two more weeks to do that. And having said that I will make the motion that we forward RPZD 06-2281 to the Council with all conditions of approval. Anthes: We have a motion to forward by Commissioner Clark. Do I hear a second? Harris: Second. Anthes: Second by, Commissioner Harris. I have a couple of questions. The drainage concerns. Just in case any neighbors are watching. We did tour this site. It hadn't rained in days when we were out there and there was quite a bit of water coming off the site. Mr. Newman, can you just talk to me about how that will be handled? Newman: Yes, ma'am. They have already begun to do a little bit of drainage work on the project. What we are going to do with this project is going to alleviate a lot of the drainage that is going to flow into the subdivisions just south of there. The development they are proposing they would only have one lot deep worth of drainage going through the subdivision to the south of them. Right now it is Planning Commission February 26, 2007 Page 26 of 53 everything north of the subdivision up to Weir Rd and beyond that is actually going through that subdivision. So with their development and the proposed detention pond it should reduce the problems that the Salem Meadows is having with the flooding. And we are all still looking at some of Salem Rd drainage in that area to make sure that the detention pond works as intended. The development will improve the drainage situation down stream. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Newman. Question about Planning Area 2. There is a note about zero lot line garages. Mr. Pate, don't we usually require garages to be setback so that the turning can be accomplished and then a guest parking space is behind them? Pate: Not typically with an alley configuration. Anthes: Ok. Pate: They are often times almost right on top of the alley. Anthes: And actually right on it? Pate: Right. Right on it. Anthes: Ok. And so you are fine with that? Pate: Yes, ma'am. Anthes: And on page 7 of the PZD booklet, they were talking about a wetland determination. Do we figure that we are going to find anything there? Pate: I am not aware of any wetlands that have been identified. And obviously in part of construction that would all have to be indicated. If they are found that was something that would actually be regulated by beyond the City. So those are pretty strict forward notes that are included. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Pate. A quick question of Mr. Broyles. I understand that we are not talking about this tonight, but I would like to just understand a little bit about the attainable housing, the 5%. Do you plan to build those structures the same as the other surrounding 95% of the lots so that they would be indistinguishable? Broyles: We were going to space them out through the property in phase one. In phase two. But you would not know that it was an attainable house. Anthes: Thank you so much for that. That is exactly where I think the City needs to go with an attainable housing policy rather than create subdivisions that segregate lower income housing into one place. Thank you very much. I would like to echo Commissioner Harris's question about the crushed stone walkways. I think Planning Commission February 26, 2007 Page 27 of 53 that is great. And I know with the gravel pave system like they have... There is a camp actually, Camp Aldersgate in Little Rock, that is an ADA camp and they use gravel pave. It meets their requirements and it reduces impervious surface and so I appreciate you looking into that. There was a mention at Agenda Session about granny flats? Is that part of this discussion at all, Mr. Pate? Pate: It's not and one of the revisions that was discussed at Subdivision Committee is that reference continued to make the booklets that were submitted. That is one of the items that staff has presented to the City Council as a white paper option that could be utilized to create attainable housing. Typically doing that would allow for an apartment style use to help pay the mortgage down on a single family home or to provide simply a granny flat for a relative. So that is certainly one of the options we have presented to the Council to allow for granny flat uses by right. But it is not something the Planning Commission can simply waive in a planned zoning district application. But I think it is important that the applicants have continued to indicate that because for the record it will be there in case a conditional use permit comes forward in the future and a garage is built with a granny flat above. So I think that is certainly something that could happen into the future. Anthes: I didn't know that that white paper had been presented. So that is good for us tc know. I think the whole idea of a (granny flat) is a good one. You have to be careful about the form and that we are not actually building two houses on a lot. That might be all the questions that I have. We do have a motion to forward by Commissioner Clark with a positive recommendation. So if there is no further discussion? Please call the roll. Roll Call: The motion to forward R-PZD 06-2281 was approved by a vote 7-0-0. Planning Commission February 26, 2007 Page 28 of 53 ANX 06-2288: Annexation (BROYLES, 245): Submitted by JAMES ATWOOD for property located at 3611 AND 3677 WEIR ROAD. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 10.61 acres. The request is to annex the subject property into the City of Fayetteville. Anthes: Our next item sort of goes with this one. Annexation request of 06-2288 for Broyles. Jesse. Fulcher: Yes, ma'am. Partly why we are seeing this with the previous item was to show, as you can see with the PZD request, it showed a phase two that may or may not happen. But we thought that it was relevant to bring both of these items forward so you can see how they relate to one another. Beyond that though, the request is for approximately 10.6 acres which bounded by these two pieces of land within the City of Fayetteville. Bounded on the north by Weir Rd and on the west actually will be the extension of Rupple Rd. This annexation will create a more acceptable City Boundary by removing that gap and City limits and squaring this off. I think in allowing for future development it is connected with the surrounded properties and will be able to coordinate more efficiently for improvements and extensions unconstructed roads. Staff is recommending this be forwarded to City Council with a recommendation for approval. If you have any questions please ask. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Fulcher. Would any member of the public like to speak to this annexation request for Broyles? Seeing none I will close the floor to public comment and ask for the applicant's presentation. Broyles: This is going to be short and sweet. When we bought the property for phase one and started our design work we met with all the neighbors in the neighborhood. The three home owners to the left, you can see the property we are buying from them is with the red stripes, and they had asked us to purchase that from them. They felt like we would be boxing them in with our previous design so we agreed and met with them and purchased the property from them that is in the red lines. We changed our site plan to include a street that goes to the left over to the new Rupple Rd. So as we applied for that annexation the City asked for us to annex as well. So we are annexing all of them. They have all agreed to it. Anthes: Thank you. Commissioners. I am glad to see this slide because our maps were a little hard to read. The shading? Mr. Pate, can you go back and look on page 12 of our staff report? It says outside City and it looks like the whole map is shaded that way and in the future could you make sure that those maps are a little bit more distinct? Because it was hard to delineate. I just have one question and that is about fire response time. Can you speak to that? Pate: A truck would get to the site... access to the site is by way of Rupple Rd, which is currently not improved on the north end, via Wedington Dr. It is being improved and it is going to be on that portion. This is one of the last remaining stretches. I Planning Commission February 26, 2007 Page 29 of 53 think will reduce some of those response times once that connection can be made through. Additionally, between a year and a half and two years ago the fire department indicated both response time and the number to get to a property and also where it lies in relation to their trigger points or where I believe a sort of a matrix of trigger points to you about a year back. And it shows that there are certain response times in a certain density. There are a number of factors and variables. But in this case it gives trigger point two which gives the need for a contract to secure land in the area for the future. So this is an area where our Fire Chief is working to secure land for the development of a Fire Station in northwest Fayetteville. So that is sort of to help you understand. The density is still low enough. It is not up to trigger point five which is construction of the station. We are still pretty low in terms of density and response time. Obviously it is higher than what they would like. But if you compare it to Fire Station number 7 that was constructed on Rupple Rd that was exactly on time in terms of trigger points. So it got the right density in the right amount of time. Some of those projects were approved at a little higher response time than we all would have liked, I think. But it takes that little bit to get the density and the other variables there to be able to purchase the property and then achieve a station in that area. Anthes: Ok. Thank you, Mr. Pate. Are there further comments or motions? Trumbo: Madam Chair? Anthes: Yes, Commissioner Trumbo. Motion: Trumbo: I'll make a motion that we approve Annexation 06-2288. Clark: Second. Anthes: We have a motion to forward by Commissioner Trumbo with a second by Commissioner Clark. Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to forward ANX 06-2288 was approved by a vote 7-0-0. R-PZD 07-2452: Planned Zoning District (THE LINKS AT FAYETTEVILLE, 400.401.361.362): Submitted by CRAFTON, TULL, SPARKS & ASSOCIATES for property Planning Commission February 26, 2007 Page 30 of 53 located at THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF WEDINGTON AND RUPPLE ROAD. The property is zoned R-PZD, RESIDENTIAL PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT 05-1636 (WELLSPRING) and contains approximately 152.23 acres. The request is for zoning and land use approval only for a new R-PZD. The proposed R-PZD would allow 1,438 residential dwelling units, 130,200 square feet of non-residential/commercial space, and 16,388 square feet of recreational buildings. The non-residential and recreational portions of the development would contain a golf course, a commercial `market' area, green space, park, and associated parking. Anthes: Our final item this evening is R-PZD 07-2452 for the Links at Fayetteville. Commissioner Harris. Harris: Madam Chair? In consultation with the City Attorney I would like to disclose that I am a licensed realtor and that my real estate license is located at Lindsey Real Estate. However, I am not going to recuse this evening because I have no vested interest in this project. I have only the interest of the citizen and a Planning Commissioner who is bound by City Plan 2025. Also I would just like to point out that Mr. Lindsey does not sign my paycheck. Mr. Lindsey does not determine my income level nor does Mr. Lindsey review or in any way assess my job performance. I would also say that neither Mr. Lindsey nor any of his representatives have discussed this project with me, nor have I discussed it with them. And I would also say that I feel that my participation in this conversation will be as it always is as a member of the Planning Commission who wants to fulfill my duty in terms of the Codes and Ordinances of this City. Anthes: Thank you, Commissioner Harris. I appreciate that. I do want to alert the applicant that we have six sitting Commissioners to hear this item. Five positive votes will be required in order to forward this item to City Council. Mr. Garner. Garner: Yes, ma'am. As background for this property, this site was rezoned in March 7, 2006. It was rezoned to a residential planned zoning district for the Wellspring project which I imagine most of you are familiar with. The zoning for the Wellspring project allows for a total of 1,175 residential dwellings and a maximum of 548,000 sq ft of non residential space. The applicant proposes an entirely new residential planned zoning district and a Master Development Plan along with new zoning. The property contains 152.23 acres. It is located on the north side of Wedington Dr. It is east of Rupple Rd. It has frontage on both of these streets. The property is currently largely undeveloped but primarily agricultural pasture land. To the north of the property is largely agricultural. To the south it is commercial strip center and mini -storage. To the east it has single family and multi -family homes. And then to the west there are developing subdivisions and some single family homes. As mentioned the applicant has requested rezoning and land use approval only for a Master Development Plan with 1,438 attached dwellings as well as 130,200 sq ft of nonresidential commercial space, and 16,388 sq ft of recreational buildings. And Table II of your staff report lists the density and all the number of units and the different Planning Commission February 26, 2007 Page 31 of 53 planning areas in which they are located in your packets. The development plan generally clusters development along Rupple Rd and the interior of the site with a nine hole golf course and a park area around the perimeter. The structures are generally facing onto the three main public streets or the golf course along the perimeter of the property. Interior to the property three public streets are proposed. One which would be accessed off of Wedington, one off of Rupple Rd, and the third would be connecting to an existing stub -out in the neighborhood to the northeast. These streets connect around a traffic circle in the central portion of the site and parking lot drive isles provide access to the majority of the multifamily buildings as well as interior connectivity throughout the development. Parking for this site and for this development will be provided with parallel parking for the mixed use, residential, and commercial areas along the public streets interior to the property. Parking lots are located interior to the project and the majority of these parking lots are located behind the buildings so they are screened from the public right-of-way. Parks requirements for this property are being met through seventeen acres of on site parkland dedication as well as money in lieu to meet the remainder of the parkland dedication. For staff's recommendation for this PZD I will refer you to our findings in the staff report. In particular I will refer you to finding number 1 starting there on page 10. It goes into a lot of detail about the City Plan 2025, and on table IV there on page 11 it lists the six main goals of the City Plan 2025. Staff does have some concerns with this development and some of our primary concerns are that this development is not in a traditional town form. We don't have a problem with the number of residential units or the residential square. It is essentially the form of the development and the development pattern. Some of our recommendations would be to have a wider variety of residential dwellings, a wider variety of uses and building types, and a larger number of public streets throughout the development as opposed to the two main pubic streets and a number of parking lot drive aisles essentially connecting the multifamily buildings. Those are the main concerns. We are recommending denial of this PZD based on lack of compliance with the City Plan 2025 and lack of compliance with the PZD ordinances. If you choose to forward this to the City Council with the recommendation for approval we have listed several conditions of approval that we would be recommending to be going with this project. I would be happy to answer any questions that you might have. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Garner. Would any member of the public like to speak to this RPZD for the Links at Fayetteville. Please come forward. Yes, come on up. Good evening. If you would just please state your name and then give us your comments. Leverington: My name is Bill Leverington. I have property on Grant. I was here about a year ago, or a year and half ago, the Wellsprings development. Behind Grand and through there, that property is virgin property and has bird species. Endangered bird species. And Wellsprings essentially set that aside. I see this here development has just completely ignored that. And then I need to talk about Planning Commission February 26, 2007 Page 32 of 53 density. With all those apartments we could have 2500 renters there. If you get your atlas out look up Arkansas towns. 152 acres would have more people in it that 80% of the towns in Arkansas. Are we going to have $229 apartments or $600 apartments? It is just a big disappointment. Another thing is that the club house is going to be right behind my house. It will be looking right down my backyard. That is just like my neighbors to the south off of Wedington. When they put in all those townhouses there they could look right down on those people's backyard. And they sold them out at a discount price. That is my concern. Thank you. Anthes: Thank you very much. Would anyone else like to speak? Please come forward. Cooper: Good evening tonight. My name is Bryan Cooper. I am with the Barber Group, the previous developer of this property called Wellsprings. I was the project manager for us on this property. I spent about a year and a half of my time trying to make this project work. What I want to come up here tonight and just clear the air on why we didn't do it. Kind of help you guys out some. When we first started this back in February of `05 our major goal was to do affordable, attainable housing in Fayetteville. It needed it bad. First estimate we kind of got coming in on the infrastructure was about 7 million dollars. With that and the soft cost and the land cost we thought we could produce a product that had housing at $125 and $150,000 per unit. A year and a half after that once we got everything done and we tweaked it and we ran a fine toothed comb through it. We got our business back and everything. We were looking at about 9 million dollars in infrastructure. There is a lot of infrastructure that we had to do. Time we had to spend over a million dollars in engineering and architects cost and land cost. We were now looking at selling these single family lots at... Anthes: Mr. Cooper? Cooper: Yes. Anthes: I am sorry but your project is not in front of us, Mr. Lindsey's is. If you could direct your comments to this development? Cooper: Yes. Well, what I am saying is that this is a very large piece of property and to make it feasible it is going to require high density type of product. People who do it best in this area are Mr. Lindsey and his company. We tried. We couldn't make it work. I hope you guys give them a chance and let them do their magic on it. They do a nice product and I think that is what this piece of property needs. Thank you. Anthes: Thank you very much. Would any other member of the public like to speak to this R-PZD? Garner: Madam Chair. Planning Commission February 26, 2007 Page 33 of 53 Anthes: Yes. Garner: We did receive public comment today. I did put an email, printed it out, from an adjacent property owner that had some concerns with this project. The main concerns they had were transition of density with some of the surrounding properties. We just told that person that we would communicated that to the Planning Commission. Anthes: Ok. A question on that one Mr. Garner. There was a question about whether the proper notification was made. Have you verified that it indeed was? Garner: It was. It was mailed to a different address, I believe, where the mail wasn't picked up. Anthes: Ok. Thank you. Is there any other public comment? Seeing none I will close the floor to public comment and ask for the applicant's presentation. Oh, I'm sorry. Sir? Leverington: I was by this property two days ago and I didn't see no sign that there would be a meeting tonight. Anthes: Ok. Might you describe where the signs were placed and when they were put out? Garner: I am not familiar with where the signs were placed. We did put them out several weeks ago. Anthes: It is a pretty large piece of property. How many signs do we usually put on a...? Pate: Usually when you have two major frontages we will at least put two or three. One on Wedington, one on Rupple is what we would typically do. Garner: I did discuss that with this gentleman earlier today. I am not sure what happened with the signs. They possibly blew over or...? I am not sure. Anthes: Ok. Alright. Would the applicant like to make a presentation? Mr. Fugitt? Fugitt: Commissioners, Attorneys, and Planners I appreciate this time to be able to make this presentation to you. First of all, of course, the location of this is on Rupple Rd just north of Highway 16. 152 acres there. The previous Wellspring property. To the east of this property is single family residential, to the west of the property is single family residential, and to the south there on Highway 16 is commercial I believe as it is currently planned. In our proposal here on the right we have, first of all, we took the site and ran our arterial streets through it connecting from Highway 16 there to the south and also connecting to the single family residential Planning Commission February 26, 2007 Page 34 of 53 to the east, and then also an entrance off of Rupple Rd. All three of those connectivity points intersecting at a town center square that is 225ft across which is a little smaller than the square here. The square here is approximately 330 ft. So that gives you an idea of the location there. Along those three major streets we have attempted to create a street scape there. These are some possible views there with all of our buildings pushed close to the street providing parallel parking, street trees along those streets to take advantage or stay in the spirit of the proposed design standards that have be bandied about recently. We have also used different building types and heights. For instance this particular look is a three story building there on the right side with some two story buildings on the left side looking into that town square and town center that we have. That particular view is taken from this location here looking down the street at the town center. In working to create this street scape and also to adhere to the design standards you see that we have the three major streets and then the buildings pushed close to the street to create the street scape. And then the parking is located behind the buildings so all of the parking is screened from the major public streets by the buildings. And then you see another set of buildings then that would look upon the golf course and the open space. This falls out of line with the traditional town form in that I suppose the next step that we could have made in order to adhere to the traditional town form would be to place another street between the buildings that face the golf course and the golf course. But we felt like that took away the advantages of those particular unites that do face the golf course because now they would be looking over a public street onto a golf course. Also it creates issues with golf balls and vehicles that have some vehicles at times. So this is how we have worked to create the street scape and the traditional town form. However, when you overlay the green space and the golf course that we are proposing here, and it is a model that has worked very well for us in the past, it is very difficult then to overlay a traditional grid system- a traditional town form- with small blocks that may be 300 to 600 ft in dimension and work the golf course into that. You know, with a golf course you need approximately 1200 to 1500 sq ft of unbroken space in order to create that golf course. So it does restrict you in those terms. That is why along Rupple Rd we have the one major intersection along Rupple. There are some other egress points along Rupple into the mixed use and apartment buildings that face on Rupple. However, the one major connection there is due to the golf course and the limitations that a golf course presents. Also if we could start (unclear) down here at the entrance off of Highway 16. We are going to be going north and when you enter the site there is approximately 5 acres there of tree preservation there that we would enter into while entering the site so that the initial impact that you will have in entering is almost a forested park -like setting. Mostly when you get into the site you notice that we have taken the.... Anthes: Mr. Fugitt, if I could, could I get you to carry the microphone with you? I am afraid that we are not catching your comments for the minutes. They have to transcribe them. Thanks. Planning Commission February 26, 2007 Page 35 of 53 Fugitt: We have had entrances or egress points into the parking areas we have lined those up in order to create intersections along that street scape. What we propose is to make those four way stop type of intersections to control traffic and also to create that environment of street scape and neighborhood along those areas. Another thing I would like to point out to you is the way the buildings and green spaces have been allocated. You see that very rarely, I think only once, do we the same building across the street from one another. There may be instances where we have the same building, two or three in a row perhaps, but across the street from that we have always worked in a different building type to create some variety there. Also we have the three story buildings. This is what we are referring to as a Churchill. It is a three story building versus a two story building. Those are those little building types there. This of course is the mixed use building that you see around the town square up here and also along Rupple Rd. That is office/commercial on the ground floor and multifamily on the second and third floors. And then the Churchill is a three story building. It has an elevator. This, where you see the front elevation, that is actually a parking lot elevation. The other side would be represented well in this first perspective here where you see the balconies and porches on the street scape side. So with that said I will go ahead and take you out to the Rupple Rd entrance here. Rupple Rd is a divided entrance here, a boulevard entrance and gated or created here by two (unclear) buildings in. Once you enter that through the mixed use buildings then on both sides we have green space created by the golf course and then very quickly into the town center. So we feel like we have created the traditional town atmosphere if not specifically the traditional town form. And that is really simply just a result of having 68% in 152 acre site having over 100 acres of that site in green space. It makes it very difficult then to build a lot of the public street infrastructure or grid, if you will, that you might see in the traditional town forum. We have agreed to dedicate 17.32 acres of parkland to the Bryce Davis Park which will almost double the size of that park. We will create three community centers. We have one community center here which will be primarily management facilities and the golf club house, fitness centers, and tanning bed, whirlpool, swimming pool, that type of thing. We will create another community center on the town square on the ground floor of one of these buildings that will be fitness center, tanning bed, whirlpools and management facilities for the second phase of this project. And then finally we will have a third community center in this location though we haven't really defined that. Though after looking at our management processes we feel like we need a third club house or community center there at the northern end of the property to facilitate phase three needs. There has been some mention about mass transit. In the responses that we got and the feed back that we got we feel like the loop system that we have created with the three community centers as well as the controlled stops there at our intersections that create great opportunities for mass transit. And also if you notice how the units themselves are clustered in close proximity to those arteries or to those circulation points the walking distance to that main spine or that main artery is pretty short to any one of those intersections. I think in maybe the previous example here, Wellspring, any kind of mass transit opportunities I think would have lent itself to Planning Commission February 26, 2007 Page 36 of 53 much more pedestrian effort than our solution has. We met with staff a number of times and we are meeting with them, actually we met with Jeremy and Karen a few times with the design standards, and this project has been brought up in that. Actually we responded to three considerations of staff. Number one was connectivity to the single family development there to the east which we provided that. The other was providing these intersecting points or creating these intersections with our parking areas. And finally we had initial commercial uses along Rupple Rd which were undesirable along Rupple so we have revised that to be a mixed use type of consideration there and reduced the amount of commercial and increased the amount of residential there. I would like to.... This is an area photograph. I know there have also been some comments made regarding the mix of uses. Now we do have a mix of building types. However there has been some comment in that we offer no single family residential as part of this proposal. We do have ownership possibilities that Mr. Lindsey will talk about later. But I think this aerial gives a good illustration of.. In talking about terms of mixed use and housing opportunities in the area what we notice is that all the land to the east and the west is single family residential and has been approved as single family residential with no consideration to multifamily or town home or side loaded home or zero lot line or any other housing type. Looking at our site specifically, 152 acres, granted there have not been those uses proposed in this project, however when you look at the area as a whole. You look at not just the 152 acres there but if you look at a 600 acre area and if you look at if this were to combine all the single family areas if we were trying to create a mix of uses on that side of town that this facility now lends that missing link or that missing use that is not present there at all. So that is how we would address the mixed use comments. Finally looking at the traditional town form back to Wellsprings... Anthes: Mr. Fugitt? Fugitt: Yes. Anthes: Wellspring is really out of the picture now, so if you just want to.... Fugitt: Well, the reason we bring up Wellspring is that as we understand it Wellspring is the adopted zoning on this property. Is that correct? Anthes: That is correct. But it really... Fugitt: Pardon me? Anthes: In that exact plan though. Fugitt: Right. So this really is the benchmark that we would make any comparisons to in a rezoning too, correct? Anthes: I'm not exactly sure. Planning Commission February 26, 2007 Page 37 of 53 Pate: It is the existing zoning to which we would compare. Fugitt: Great. So we have to start here to make any kind of comparisons for the new zonings. Anthes: Fair enough. Let me just caution you that you have five minutes left of your twenty minute allotment. Fugitt: My personal allotment? Anthes: No, your development team gets twenty minutes. Fugitt: I would like to turn that over then to Mr. Lindsey. Lindsey: (Unclear and away from the microphone) The real fact is that this is not about (unclear). This is a connecting network. This is not streets and blocks as you would normally think of it. This part here is. This part is not. The first front part is not. It is big buildings centered by what we are doing. So half of this does not meet the letter of the law as it was laid out when you approved it. That was his point. I wanted to quickly just say that dealing with this table IV they are talking about how we will make appropriate infill and revitalization our highest priority, and staff said yes to that. That we meet that. We will discourage suburban sprawl. They said yes to that. We will make traditional town form the standard. Well, obviously with a golf course you can't. We can't cross it and do all the things you would normally do. We will grow a livable transportation network. Certainly with our three commercial centers we should be able to have more places for people to be picked up and moved and go than maybe some other usage. Green space, we have 68% green space on this site. I don't know if there has ever been a site on Fayetteville that has 68% green space. That is what your statistics show, that it was 68%. Certainly had enough green space. And then it gets down to number six. The multifamily apartment building proposed are a relatively affordable housing project, however the like and variety of lot size and residential uses provided by this development. This is the opportunity for a mixed income neighborhood community without the potential for home ownership. What we are willing to say here tonight is that we are doing a deal in Gulf Shores Alabama right now and we are selling as condos. So I think that our position that we will take here to you all is that the costs are greater. Maybe we need to sell some of them. So we would make a commitment to sell at least a third of these right out of the box. So whatever we build we would make a third of them available to the market place and they will be attainable and affordable. I checked today. The medium house in Fayetteville, Arkansas is $185,000. That means that 70% of that is attainable. That would be $129,500. I didn't do it. I had a girl do it. But in that (unclear) book, the young lady who researched this today said that there were two new houses in the whole multi -list book up to 130 and below level. Our position would just simply be able to say that with what we Planning Commission February 26, 2007 Page 38 of 53 are going to do out there we could make attainable an affordable reality. It would be a great place to live. And who knows, we may sell it off. I don't know. But it would be a point that we would be willing to do that. We have never done that before but we have tasted what it was like, kind of, in Gulf Shores. And we would be willing to do that. I think our green space supersedes the question of the needing of blocks and all that goes with that site. Maybe somebody likes the other one better. I understand with green space that it goes with the question of what we got there will be something that people will love to live around for an awfully long time. These other houses over here, I don't believe that there would have been an attainable house in all of Wellsprings just from what I heard them say. Did y'all have any? There was only 130 when y'all finalized your deal. Cooper: Yes sir. Lindsey: So, I guess our point is that it is a chance to get attainable housing. It also is a chance for the average person to have a place to live and rent in Fayetteville and not be paying... In an obtainable house, if you go and finance it your payment is going to be in excess of $1100 a month plus your taxes and the insurance. It is not attainable. If you get the medium income house here it is $185,000. So I guess in simple language for you all we think what this project is, it will be the nicest project we've ever done. We have very much considered all of Planning's ideas. We have changed a number of the designs and we have tried to comply and meet with their needs and requirements in making this happen. We feel like we have made a major effort to make that real and we hope that you all could see what our effort has been and what that really means and represents as you look at that project. Thank y'all very much. Anthes: Thank you Mr. Lindsey. Andrew could I get you to take that top board down and move it over here so that the cameras can see? Or else over by Mr. Pate. Actually, you could just put it.... Right. The easel needs to go too I think. Can you see through that? Great. Thank you. Alright, Commissioners? I'm sorry the public comment section is closed. Ok? Harris: Madam Chair? Anthes: Yes, Commissioner Harris. Harris: I would just be interested, to begin with, it seems to me that we have a bit of different information in front of us and so I would like to throw it to Mr. Pate. How do you incorporate Mr. Lindsey's offer into your assessment now of selling at least a third as condo's? Pate: I believe that probably from the last planned zoning district we heard tonight and Mr. William's comment on that, it would likely be something like a bill of assurance also if he is wanting to offer a certain amount of housing for sale. I don't believe it is something the City can legally require as part of our Planning Commission February 26, 2007 Page 39 of 53 development and zoning review. Williams: I don't think we could require it. It is somewhat different than the other offer which was affordable housing. I think that Mr. Lindsey can in his development documents indicate that there is going to be a certain number of condos that will be offered as well as a certain number of apartments as opposed to condominiums. So I think that is something that they can propose in their documents that they will have certain of the buildings that will be designated as condominium buildings as opposed to apartments. And I think that could be approved. So I think that is a little bit different than the affordable housing offer which is much more of a bill of assurance to get us to rezone. Anthes: Mr. Williams, they would need to indicate which buildings were rental units and which units were sale units to complete the PZD ordinance? Williams: They probably wouldn't have to designate precisely which buildings it would be but they would need to indicate numbers and have it fairly detailed enough so it could be enforced by the Planning Department. Anthes: Well, I have a question about that then, Mr. Pate. I would think that we would need to understand which planning areas, if this is phased, that the sale versus rentals would be in. Is that true? Pate: I assume so. If that is the way that the Planning Commission would want to recommend this project and you want me to enforce that certain buildings are for sale, which is atypical. Even standard condominium projects can be for rent or for sale. You can buy a condo and still rent it out. So if that is the case it could be tricky to enforce that. But I would say that we would need some direction in that regard. Anthes: Ok. Thank you. I'm sorry, did I interrupt you Commissioner Harris? Does anyone else have questions? Lack: Madam Chair. Anthes: Yes, Commissioner Lack. Lack: What I had anticipated from Commissioner Harris's question was more of a dialogue on how that addresses City Plan 2025 and whether that would meet staff s ideals for mixed use and the mixture of products. Pate: I certainly think it would help. The Planned Zoning District in 2005 was amended dramatically to incorporate a master development level of plan detail which is what we are seeing tonight. This is not for development approval. It is for zoning and land use only. And in part that was in response to large projects that the Planning Commission and City Council are seeing. Namely Springwoods Planning Commission February 26, 2007 Page 40 of 53 that had a large parcel of property wherein fulling designed projects simply weren't complete yet and the investment both in time and money and your time to review that would simply be overwhelming. And so that ordinance was adopted in an effort to address projects such as this. We've seen two quite large projects. Wellsprings, which is coincidentally on this site and Park West which is also within the same parks quadrant just northeast of this property. Both were rather large projects, 150 acres plus and had in excess of 1100 to 1700 dwelling units and several hundred thousand square feet of nonresidential space. In both of those projects, what we have seen and what staff has spoken to applicants about in terms of our adoption of City Plan 2025 now and larger projects is that a project really needs to, with this size and scope, transition almost within itself. I know Mr. Fugitt made the point that within over 600 acres that there are single family residences available. And I think in a larger macro level that that is certainly a good point because hopefully then the commercial uses that would be established here could be supported by properties outside of this particular piece of property. I think that in terms of trying to establish compatibility and transition of dwelling type home ownership and attainable housing all within the same project is certainly a goal of a project whether it is the entire 600 acres or 150 acres or 10 acres as we have seen on other projects. I think Mr. Lindsey would attest to the fact that the staff is being consistent in requesting some single family uses, some different types of development patterns on this property as it has come through this review process. We feel that it would transition better to existing single family homes that surround the perimeter of this site. This is undeniably a large impact in the area. You can tell by the chart that Mr. Lindsey referenced that there are three yes's and three no's there in terms of the three goals. That is our opinion of course and you don't have to agree with any or all of those but I think that certainly the project has come a long way in our review process. It certainly meets some of the goals. I am going a little bit beyond your attainable housing question, but I think in terms of the transition to offer for a single family small lot or a single family large lot, two family, three family types of dwelling units it creates more of a sense of community and that is getting back to creating that town form. I think that was what staff, I think that was our point in our staff report in trying to get across to you that the compatibility and the compliance of the future land use plan we felt that with this project is just wasn't quite there. Lack: And I guess also still have some pause with whether that mixture of types is fulfilled with that. I think it does help and it is a good point. It was also a good point that within a 600 acre area you are looking at a mixture of uses and you are looking at the single family residence that we would probably all like to see as a part of this. I kind of come back to an idea of the requirements for zoning and the requirements for the modification of a zoning district. And when we look at a large scale development or something of that nature we are looking at something where development rights are inherent with the project and with the property where as with a rezoning we are looking at modifying those rights. I am having a little trouble. While I think this project has exhibited a lot of admirable qualities and has come a long way towards addressing the 2025 goals, I am still having a Planning Commission February 26, 2007 Page 41 of 53 little problem saying that there is a reason here to move past the existing zoning or that there is added amenity here to this and added benefit to the City of Fayetteville and reaching the 2025 goals as opposed to the zoning that it carries now. So while I think it has great potential and I think we can probably get there with this plan I am not sure that I am there yet. I think that access is probably another issue that the multiple points of access that we would normally want to see and I certainly understand the golf course. And I would like to ask the applicant if you can tell me what your linear footage is on the golf course now? Mr. Fugitt mentioned that you need 1200 to 1500 It for a golf course. And I wondered what kind of footage we are at now because certainly with a reduction of footage on one or two holes you could certainly add additional cuts to Rupple Rd. Specifically I am looking at between four and five. It would give you a connection to Rupple Rd at the far north end of the site which I think would be very beneficial and something we would probably require in most any subdivision. That there would be more than one access to the main principle arterial. If we could address that from a footage requirement. Kelso: Sure. I will try to address that. My name is Jerry Kelso. I'm with Crafton, Tull, Sparks and Associates. I'm the engineer. What might go with that is just a real quick traffic study that may.... Anthes: Mr. Kelso, if you could hand those to Mr. Pate? Kelso: To answer your question about another access, I think we can work that out for additional access. We did do a quick traffic study and the recommendations were basically the same as the original R-PZD of Wellspring. It recommended traffic signals at Rupple Rd and at Wedington as our two main intersection points. The rest of them were just signed. But additional access we can work with that. One thing I wanted to point out is that we are building about 9,000 feet, almost two miles, of public street including the improvements to Rupple Rd. I also wanted to point out that the existing overall traffic from the original development versus this development. We are about 28% total 24 hour volume less traffic than the original plan. So hopefully that kind of answers your question. Lack: Ok. Yeah. And I really, I just asked for the linear footage because I don't want to get into designing your golf course or making suggestions of that nature. But I am concerned about those points of connection to Rupple. We hope that we can..... Kelso: According to the traffic study the existing connections that we have are adequate. However, another access could be done pretty easily. We would be willing to do that. Lack: Ok. Kelso: Thank you. Planning Commission February 26, 2007 Page 42 of 53 Lack: I think that is all for now. Anthes: Anything further? Graves: Madam Chair? Anthes: Yes, Commissioner Graves. Graves: Did we have a Subdivision? I assume we had a Subdivision that saw this. We did not? Pate: We did not. This came forward directly to here. Graves: It just came straight here? Anthes: I have a couple of questions. A question of staff. I am trying to compare the amount of egress and public street that we require with other developments kind of on a per unit basis. How many total residents are we talking about in this space? We are talking about 1438 dwelling units, correct? Pate: Correct. Anthes: Because most of the developments that we see are much smaller than this. Can you compare the order of magnitude of the numbers of ingress and egress points that are required on smaller parcels as compared to this 150 some odd acre parcel? Pate: I would say they are much greater than what we are seeing. Especially with connections to adjacent properties. This particular project, for obvious reasons, does not show connections to the north. There is one public street connection to the east and the west, and one public street connection to the south. If this were zoned single family residential they would have to meet our block standard which is a minimum of 1400 ft apart for those connections. So in terms of that rationale I believe the zoning before this had four or five public street connections to Rupple Rd. One to the south to Wedington for obvious reasons again because of just of the context of the property and the situation of the property. This is a rather hard question to answer to be honest because densities vary as well. A rather large block of 1400ft you would still have quite a few more connections. In the applicant's defense the original proposal submitted to us showed a curb cut essentially everywhere you see a parking lot stub along the commercial area. Staff was not supportive of that, of just unlimited curb cuts along commercial areas. We would rather see more public street connections to create actual intersections with subdivisions across the street that have already been approved and are constructed in order to create that street network that actually crosses Rupple Rd as opposed to creating this almost impenetrable Rupple Rd that no one Planning Commission February 26, 2007 Page 43 of 53 can get to and from. So utilizing those single family uses to the west to get to this property I think is certainly important in how it relates in context to the overall surrounding environment. So I certainly think it was important as well. Anthes: And Mr. Fugitt I believe stated that they had reduced the amount of commercial along Rupple Rd and increased the residential or the mixed use aspect in response to staff s comments. Can you tell us how you got there? Pate: Sure, the original proposal all along Rupple Rd, Andrew correct me if I am wrong, was strictly commercially out lots. That would be quite similar to what you see in the southeast corner. That was the primary use along the entirety of Rupple Rd. Staff s opinion with regard to that particular proposal was that it was not at all compatible with projects directly west of this. You may remember a rezoning request directly to the west that actually referenced the Wellspring project in a bill of assurance in terms of trying to keep a character similar to that and not a out lot of buildings surrounded by parking. So I believe these changes here that you see are in reference to that. Not necessarily the residential units but just the different form that has been proposed. Anthes: So in the commercial nodes that have been identified in the Plan 2025 in the map, do we see commercial as stretching up around Rupple? Or are we trying to concentrate that more on the corners of Wedington and Rupple? Those major intersections? Pate: This particular site was identified because the City Council had made a policy decision to rezone this property to Wellspring. So it really is looking back at that zoning. That is the reason that decision was made. It was previously residential in nature in the Future Land Use Plan 2020. In 2025 it is shown as Urban Core? Is that what that is? Garner: It is City Neighborhood. It is currently City Neighborhood. Pate: Which does reference commercial in more concentrated locations. It is still primarily residential but is commercial in concentrated locations. The residential neighborhood goes down to only corner locations. Really that is where that reference is. I think the next designation up would be the Urban Core which is really kind of mixing it everywhere. I don't think this street is quite seen as that type of use particularly. Anthes: I do have a little concern... I am having trouble with that being stretched out along Rupple. I understand that Rupple is going to have the boulevard section now, so if you think about getting in and out of retail areas and how many cuts and left turns would need to be made and how that might degrade that boulevard section if multiple points of ingress and egress were allowed. Which it sounds like what they wanted in the beginning. I am also a little unconvinced about the retail in that it is not clustered and it does not create a node. It is more, even Planning Commission February 26, 2007 Page 44 of 53 though the parking is behind it, it seems more like a strip development in that it is stretched out in a linear fashion along the road as opposed to clustered. I have a question for engineering and I don't know if this is anything that we have ever looked at before. Because this is right here at Hamstring Creek and the PZD booklet indicates that the runoff from this area will indeed end up in the Hamstring Creek basin, do we consider the fact that golf courses normally take a great amount of chemicals to maintain and how that ends up in the creeks? Or is it filtered? Newman: You are correct. I am not sure if the applicant has any information to add on that. But we have not reviewed that at this stage. Anthes: Alright. But is that something that the city does and engineering staff does review? Pate: I don't believe we have any water quality ordinances on the books currently. That is probably about the quantity that is there. Jarrett: As far as the runoff goes there is an Audubon International Cooperative Sanctuary program that our golf courses will comply to. They deal with major practices that reduce the pollution off the golf courses. We have done that at several locations at our other golf courses to manage just the problem that you talked about. Anthes: Great. Thank you very much for that. Pate: Madam Chair? Anthes: Yes, Mr. Pate? Pate: For the record, that was Mr. Jarrett. Anthes: Yes. I am trying to think of what else. I have notes all over the place here. I do have a question of staff. I remembered quite a bit of comment in the earlier discussions about this piece of property and some of the neighborhood comments tonight. In the Planning Area III, the club house location, as I seem to recall there quite a bit of discussion about that being a wildlife preservation habitat that was pretty significant. We had negotiated to try to minimally disturb that area in the prior projects. I wondered if that was a consideration in this one. That seems like that was where the club house is being shown. Pate: If the scale is correct the project there that you see does show that as all tree preservation. It is probably the largest concentration of the highest significant trees in the area. I believe there was a neighbor to the east that spoke about a particular bird species or a wildlife species. Certainly not something that we review in term of criteria. But the significant tree species, we did speak with the previous developers and applicants about that particular portion. I believe there Planning Commission February 26, 2007 Page 45 of 53 were more commercial uses actually shown within that area with initial submittals until some of those trees were identified on the property. So those did become tree preservation areas. You can see on this plan of Links of Fayetteville that it does incorporate some of that but not quite to the extent of the 40 acres of the Wellspring community in that portion. Anthes: Ok. Harris: Madam Chair, could I just....? Mr. Pate could you just go back to what you were just talking about? The tree preservation? Where that is located that some of them are still being preserved. Pate: If you will note that... Harris: I just simply can't tell by what I am looking at right now. Pate: Yes, thank you. From the last sheet you can see the denoted tree preservation and the areas there. That is where is south of the club house and tennis courts and around the eastern property line. That is roughly in line with where the, if you look at the Wellsprings site, this map down here on the floor. That is roughly where the street begins to curve back around to the west to connect to Rupple. Harris: Ok. Anthes: I guess we could move through conditions of approval and organize this. The Planning Commission determination of street improvements condition number one. Are there comments? Trumbo: Madam Chair? Anthes: Yes. Trumbo: Question. Will there be a light on the Wedington entrance onto the property? was thinking that we were asking one of Wellspring but I may be wrong. Pate: With the Wellspring project we did see a full traffic study. We did not get an updated one but we anticipate that it is obviously pretty similar numbers. About 29% less traffic now from this memo that we got today. But what we have basically made our, rather loose recommendations on there are the evaluation of signalization. In a full blown traffic study that we got at the time of development should this planned zoning district be approved. But we are looking at essentially the eastern half of Rupple Rd being constructed into the boulevard. That would provide safe and adequate access for this property and signalization where it would be warranted with likely assessments that would occur. Those are all things that you would like to see. You would certainly see again at the time of development. Planning Commission February 26, 2007 Page 46 of 53 Trumbo: Ok. And the connection that is shown stubbing out here on the northeast corner, that is going to connect? There is a stub out waiting for it? Pate: Yes. There is a street stub out. Trumbo: A street stub -out. Ok. Thank you. Anthes: So on the determination, Staff is recommending installation of traffic signals on Rupple and on Wedington and constructing the eastern half of Rupple to the Master Street Plan designation along the frontage and construction of street improvement south of Rupple to Wedington with transition lanes and relocation of a signal. Is everyone in agreement with those conditions? Trumbo: Yes. Graves: Madam Chair, maybe we can take this up after. We can discuss each of the ones that require finding but I think that the applicant so far has spent time in its presentation addressing the fact that the staff recommended denial. These would assume that if it were approved what the positions would be. I would be interested to know at some point whether the applicant agrees with these different conditions that we would be making. Anthes: We could start by asking whether we have signed conditions of approval? Pate: We do not and simply because we are recommending denial. The way Commissioner Graves noted, should the Planning Commission forward this to the City Council these are the conditions we would recommend. These were emailed to the applicant on Friday as part of our typical notification process. Anthes: And the method to my madness here was to structure the discussion and find out where the points of agreement were and where there might be disagreement. Graves: I understand that. I just at some point would like.... I don't see any point in passing this if there are a bunch of conditions in here that the developer isn't going to live with and then we have all kind of wasted our time. Anthes: Has the applicant reviewed the conditions of approval that were sent to you? Graves: At some point I would just like to hear from them. It doesn't have to be right now. Kelso: Yes, we have reviewed the conditions and have got the owner looking at them right now. But I think we are ok with them. Anthes: Ok. Thank you, Mr. Kelso. But please let us know if that changes. Planning Commission February 26, 2007 Page 47 of 53 Kelso: Ok. Anthes: Condition number two is determination of connectivity. I believe we've had a couple of comments tonight that have suggested that an additional connection on the northwest side of the property would be possible or feasible in the plan. Is there any other comment on connectivity in general? Trumbo: Madam Chair. Anthes: Yes, Commissioner Trumbo. Trumbo: I would be in support of adding that we have that connection to the northwest that Commissioner Lack was talking about. I would be in support of adding that to that condition. Lack: Madam Chair. I would also look at and would request that we look at an access point at the far south of the property. Looking at the lot block configuration that Mr. Pate spoke of, and before that I had kind of grappled with the weight of what should be required. But if we did look at that 1400 ft lot block configuration that we would see as maximum that would require three points of access. It seems that it would not be terribly disruptive to access at that south property line. So I would like to hear some discussion from the Commission and maybe from the applicant as well. I think with that I would be perfectly happy with the connectivity. I think that would even give a better connectivity for the mixed use that is along Rupple and that other point of access. At least another point of access to help the survival of building in that commercial. Anthes: I think I would agree, but I would like to take it a step further. It seems like those points of access should access the actual city street system. It should integrate with the city street system rather than to the parking lot drive aisles. For this to satisfy the connectivity finding in my mind, we would have to take that south connection through south of that golf course hole and connect it through the housing there to the major north/south road. Likewise on the north connection, I would like to see that come through and actually connect with the street that goes to the east so that we have an actual east/west connection to city streets through the property. Without that, with those accesses merely going to parking lot drive aisles I am not sure that that true connectivity is met on the site. Lack: I believe I would agree with that. We actually, our ordinance requires.... It disallows the connection of two public streets by a private street which I would say that the parking lot would qualify as that in this configuration. Anthes: Does anybody have any feelings about the waiver of the minimum street design standards? I guess I am trying to... Is this 60ft right-of-way, that is to allow for the section with the parallel parking on both sides correct? Planning Commission February 26, 2007 Page 48 of 53 Pate: Yes. Anthes: I would be fine with that. Anybody else? Those are the specific findings that we need to make. It looks like we are ok with one of three but we would like to see some additional connectivity on item two. I guess let's just open it back up for just general comments and questions. Harris: Madam Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Harris. Harris: I think the suggestion that you and Commissioner Lack are making about additional connectivity does go some distance towards helping with better fulfilling goal three of City Plan 2025. In terms of sort of making a more internally cohesive community I would certainly like to have further discussion of how this project might fulfill this goal even more fully. More comprehensively. As you all know by now I am not an urban planner so I am going to have to ask for my colleagues to think that through just a bit. If in fact everybody has any desire to do so. Anthes: Well, I can look for things in this project that are working, and there are some things that are. I believe that the applicant has in earnest tried to modify their standard development plan in order to meet a lot of the City of Fayetteville's goals. I think they have been somewhat successful. It is obvious that these streetscapes are doing much more to meet those criteria than the previous product that they have delivered has. The question for me is that we have a 150 acre parcel. Would we, looking at this as a rezoning request, think that 150 acres of multi -family at this density is appropriate at that location and that scale of property? And that is just as a straight rezoning kind of question. I am not convinced that we would, if we weren't looking at a specific PZD but we were just looking just at the rezoning, whether we would be considering that at all. I am thinking of 50 acre parcels near here that came through for rezoning. There was one in particular that came through with a rezoning request for single family. Or maybe it was duplexes. It was 50 acres and we asked them to go back and bring us planning areas that broke that up and transitioned. They came back with the commercial transitioning to a multifamily transitioning to single family and that is the way that project was rezoned and accepted. And that was on 50 acres. So when we look at 150 acres, that burden of transition becomes more so to me and so that is where I still struggle. When we are looking at the traditional town form and you are talking about how buildings are put together in a way that creates a compact, complete, and connected neighborhoods, you have to be looking at distances between nodes. I am afraid that these distances are a little far. I am not convinced that the retail is contributing to the overall housing development and the greater community in a way that makes a lot of sense. I am very worried about deploying only a couple of unit types, even though they are Planning Commission February 26, 2007 Page 49 of 53 slightly different styles they are very similar in mass, across such a big piece of property. Bryant: Madam Chair? Anthes: Yes. Commissioner Bryant. Bryant: Seldom do I speak. I am looking at the Master Development Plan for Table II and Table IV and on Goal #5 looks like the golf course is included for 130 acres accounting for the 68% green space. But in Table II the golf course is included with the residential density. So will that make a difference? Pate: How that has been addressed in this particular project is that the overall golf course and the apartment dwellings are all in one planning area so that density is calculated over that overall area. I think the point that you are making is that 130 acres, which is the 68% roughly is showing the overall green space of the overall project. Not the public green space necessarily, but green space overall. Anthes: I guess.... Commissioner Bryant were you finished? Bryant: Yeah. Anthes: I look at this project and I am thinking what could be done to it that would make me want to vote yes. And I think that the street connections that we talked about would help a lot. I would also like to look at how the retail works, both within this development and how it assists the other single family residential neighborhoods around it. I appreciate that Mr. Lindsey has offered that a third of these units may be for sale. In doing so, I am wondering if there would be any room to look at unit type and say there are going to be some for sale units, some rental units, and perhaps we could vary the scale and the mass of the buildings a little bit more to provide the transition that I believe is required or called out by City Plan 2025 and certainly that staff has called out in their findings as being one of the major things that has caused them to recommend denial of the project. Harris: Madam Chair, I would really echo your sentiments there because there is so much to recommend this project. Just the green on the sheet of paper is a sort of welcome sight in Fayetteville because we are talking about the need to maintain, sustain, green space. I also appreciate your comments about the golf course because I am sure that we have more than a group of listeners thinking that golf courses and green space..... That is not exactly what people have in mind. I also appreciate coming from the Lindsay teem the Audubon Cooperation. I would like to sort of talk about including that later if we could. For me, at some basic level I cannot easily correlate this with the sort of design principles that have been floating in Fayetteville and indeed then became codified to one extent or another in Fayetteville since Dover Kohl were invited to come and help educate our city about our various options. And then our citizens chose particular options. And it Planning Commission February 26, 2007 Page 50 of 53 seems to me that the options they chose, this project doesn't entirely respond to those. Because, as you have pointed out so well, it is just its scale. I think we have to ask it to respond a bit more than perhaps it is now. I like your suggestion, Commissioner Anthes, that perhaps there is a conversation to be had because I too appreciate Mr. Lindsey's willingness to sell a third of these as condos. So that makes about 430 or some units would be available for the market place in that way. But the possibility of varying unit type and the possibility of scale and mass of the buildings and discussing the sort of work and the interaction of the retail space with the larger community I think is appropriate. Those are all appropriate aspects of the conversation we could have. I would love to see us vote yes on this. I think there is some distance to travel before I can say yes comfortably. Again, because I feel bound by City Plan 2025. Anthes: Thank you, Commissioner Harris. Are there further comments? Graves: Madam Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Graves. Graves: I have heard at least now two Commissioner indicate that they cannot support it in its current form. And given that we only have six commissioners here tonight and it would require five of those six Commissioners to affirmatively recommend it I am inclined to recommend that we table this item for a couple of weeks. First of all to allow us to have maybe a fuller slate of Commissioners here and second of all to allow perhaps for the applicant to respond to some of the comments. I think some of these comments, perhaps their response will be "we don't want to do that" but it sounds like the applicant has indicated a willingness to actually address those in the affirmative. So my implication is to table that. But if the applicant wants to push forward given the comments that have already been made then certainly I think the commission would do that. But that would be my inclination right now would be to move to table it. Anthes: Is that a motion? Graves: I don't know if there are other Commissioners that feel the same and perhaps would like to get the applicant's thoughts on that as well. Kelso: We would request to be tabled and work with staff in the next couple of weeks and bring this revised plan back to you guys on some of these comments. Hopefully we can address that. Anthes: Thank you Mr. Kelso. Motion: Graves: Well then I will move that we table this to our next regularly scheduled meeting. Planning Commission February 26, 2007 Page 51 of 53 Anthes: We have a motion to table by Commissioner Graves. Trumbo: Second. Anthes: And a second by Commissioner Trumbo. Is there further discussion? Trumbo: Yes, Madam Chair. I would like to tell the applicant that the density is not the issue with me. I don't have a problem with the density on this acreage. It is more about the form. And as Commissioner Harris and Commissioner Anthes are alluding to are the different styles of product that you are going to sell and build. And hopefully there is a way where it will work for everyone where we can get you this density and also some different styles of buildings and types of buildings. Lack: Madam Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Lack. Lack: I would also like to echo the accolades of 68% green space. Trumbo: Absolutely. Lack: The amount of green on this page makes me really want to find a way to pass this. I really want to do this. There are just a few things that I think we need to work out to try to be obviously recognizable in an increased amenity for rezoning. To make a good reason to rezone and to be succinct in those. I think we have talked about the connectivity of public streets. Attempting two more connections of public streets to Rupple. How the commercial actually works with Rupple. And that may be a little more ethereal but I would like to hear some dialogue about that. The building types or the usage type variation is probably the biggie That is probably the hard one to get over because it is something fairly clearly directed by the 2025 plan. And while you have gone a long way with the developmental model it is probably hard to do with this development model. So I don't know kind of where that goes. But I think that we have to talk about that. As far as selling a third of the units as condo, I think that goes a long way to that. I think that is a good step. I would certainly, and I don't know how we do it with an offered Bill of Assurance that you would present, but I would hope that that is sellable to individual buyers as opposed to a separate management company or something that would buy a third of the properties. I think that would be unfortunate. We would regret having seen that if something like that happened. But I really look forward to seeing this again and getting through it and getting a product that has this much green space, the golf course and everything together. Anthes: To follow up on that, Commissioner Lack, I think that when you have a degree of home ownership in an area it is positive. It creates a feeling of ownership in the entire development, and that is a positive impact. But if those condos are just Planning Commission February 26, 2007 Page 52 of 53 condos versus rented versus sold and they are exactly in the same form and they look exactly the same and they lay the same on the site, I am not sure that we are achieving the true mix just by the fact that they are sold or rented. It seems like that differentiation needs to be greater. And that is what we are talking about, the different building forms. And another thing I would like to say about the retail is that I don't really have a problem, given this project's location, having an out lot or two that would be sold for commercial use that would be straight commercial, if that would help your proforma, because I think that at the corner of Wedington and Rupple there is some need for that. It wouldn't really bother me so much if that worked better than having those mixed use unit types that you have. So if that gives you a little flexibility, I would be fine with that as well. It looks like people are shaking their heads yes so it might be. Lindsey: We would prefer that. We just felt like staff was feeling pretty strong about not wanting commercial down Rupple. Anthes: Yes. Lindsey: And that is basically. We had commercial down Rupple. Anthes: I think if you focused it more towards Wedington and that intersection and that southern part of Rupple rather than all the way along it we might could do something there. Lindsey: Yes ma'am. Anthes: Ok. Lindsey: Thank you all. And we will get with Mr. Williams on some kind of a legal statement and a legal arrangement that would lend itself to allowing that to potentially be condominiums. We may choose which units we want to do and it which locations which make a lot of sense as far as overlooking lakes and having a segment of it that would be managed and one or the other management operations. We think that we could probably design that out. One of the things that made me make that statement was the fact that there is nothing under $130,000 that is new in town which obviously means that there is a market there. Which also means that what we have probably would fit that market. And we did the deal on Gulf Shores and we sold 90 or something like that down there. The price was much higher than what we would need here. So ... Anyway, thank y'all very much. Anthes: Alright. Thank you Mr. Lindsey. We have a motion to table by Commissioner Graves with a second by Commissioner Trumbo. Is there further discussion? Trumbo: Commissioner Anthes? I have one question about the commercial in the front. Would you be comfortable with actually taking some of the commercial from the Planning Commission February 26, 2007 Page 53 of 53 north part on Rupple there and making that some type of housing, multi -housing, or town home facing Rupple and having less commercial? Anthes: Yeah. The question is how it is arranged and where it makes sense. Obviously having some commercial around that center of town area where they have some mixed use, that works. That development itself is good. But I am sure that City staff can assist the applicant by saying "where are the other markets"? Trumbo: That doesn't all have to be commercial. Anthes: Right, right. It could be split up. Pate: I would also ask. The connection that you also reference I believe in the northwest corner and southwest corners. Maybe you are not all agreeing to the same thing. Are you thinking public streets or are you thinking just cross access through drive aisles? Anthes: Public streets. Trumbo: Public streets. Graves: And I was less worried about the southwest one. I was interested in the northwest one. Pate: So public streets connecting those. Ok. Anthes: Is there further discussion? Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to table R-PZD 07-2452 The Links was carried by a vote 7-0-0. Anthes: Thank you. Are there any announcements? We have one item of business and that it that it is time to elect a new slate of officers for 2007. I will be appointing a nominating committee of three commissioners. There is not Chair for this Committee. Mr. Pate, there will be an announcement because press has to be invited. Mr. Pate will meet with the Committee members and remind them of the responsibilities of each of the positions. I would like to ask Commissioners Harris, Lack, and Bryant if they would serve on that Committee. Harris: Ok. Lack: Certainly. Bryant: Thank you. Anthes: Is there anything else? We are adjourned.